Resources

A hugely important decision on flood risk & planning post-Mead from the Planning Inspectorate was made this morning (18 March 2025), allowing Persimmon Homes' appeal against North Somerset Council's non-determination of an application for planning permission for up to 190 homes at Yatton - following a lengthy and vigorously contested planning inquiry.Although the flood risk sequential test was failed, the appeal was allowed and planning permission granted. The Inspector noted that the judgment in Mead made clear that failure to comply with the sequential test is not necessarily fatal; and he went on to hold that there were a number of reasons (see paras. 174-195 of the decision) which told in favour of granting planning permission here, including the extent of the housing shortfall, the need for some sites in areas of flood risk to come forward meet housing needs, that the proposed homes would not be at risk of flooding (only the access), that it would not increase flood risk on adjoining land, and that it is not a site at risk of sudden inundation (it would take 42 hours from first high tide to flood in the design storm event of 1 in 200 years post 2080).After a succession of…

CAR sought to enforce an adjudicator’s decision arising from a so-called smash and grab adjudication by summary judgment.  For its part Placefirst sought a final decision, in part 8 proceedings, on the dispute and relied upon that claim as a defence to the adjudication enforcement.  There was no other defence to the adjudication enforcement.

Background A number of defendants applied for their costs following a Costs Management hearing. The underlying dispute concerned alleged fire-safety defects in a block of student accommodation that was being built in a modular-unit fashion. There were seven defendants to the action. The First Defendant (D1) was the construction manager. The entirety of the claim was passed on to the construction manager. The Second Defendant (D2) was the architect. The Third Defendant (D3) Tom Coulson was responsible for the cladding on the external walls. The Fourth Defendant (D4) supplied the modular units. The Fifth Defendant (D5) was the developer. D4 and D5 were represented jointly. The Sixth Defendant was responsible for the fire-stopping works. The Seventh Defendant was the installer of the works. The claimants sought costs of approximately £11 million against the potential remediation cost of £30 million. The issue before the court was whether these costs were reasonable and proportionate.  Decision (Constable J)Mr. Justice Constable granted the defendants’ applications, finding the claimants' budgeted costs to be excessive and disproportionate. The judge endorsed the views of Master…